Dear Publius Huldah:
I liked yoiur nullification article:
And I would like to amend your marvelous commentary with an observation underpinned by an excerpt from Florida’s first Constitution of 1838:
Declaration of Rights.
That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
Section 1. That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.
Section 2. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient.
You see in section 2 a mirror of the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence paragraph 2. Focus on the words inalienable (no one can take it) and indefeasible (you can’t give it up). This right to alter or abolish a form of government includes shooting dead a mugger who by demanding your wallet and watch establishes a monocracy over you, or assassinating a high-ranking criminal government employee whom you could never bring down through peaceable political processes or litigation, or a direct personal appeal to straighten up and fly right.
Right there in the Florida Constitution of 176 years ago we have these magnificent nullification and interposition principles about which you wrote, WAY HIGH UP on the list of acknowledged NATURAL rights. We have that at the STATE LEVEL, not just the federal level, declaring that WE (whoever that means) have the right to alter or abolish (meaning replace or exterminate) the present form of government (or any member of it) if it/he/she does not please us.
Unfortunately, the Feds caused the destruction of that section in the Civil War era. I guess they thought that gave pesky Floridians the wrong idea about the extent of their rights and powers. But “inalienable” and “indefeasible” still mean the same thing – NEVER can we yield or they take that right, whether or not written. I guess it goes without our saying it, doesn’t it?
But that brings up this insouciant question. WHO is “they” (in reference to the people with that inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government)? And why did the authors use the term “they” instead of “we?” You need to address that in your articles.
I think the term refers to any one person or group with the physical might to impose a different will upon the mass of folks who govern and have the power to suppress insurrections, rebellions, and uprisings. Imposing that will could come from the polls, but not in this day and age when most of the voters subsist on the government payroll or dole in some way. They won’t bite the hand that feeds them. That of course explains why I believe they and the stupid and other irresponsibles should not enjoy suffrage rights.
And so we see that “right” does not mean “power.” Obviously, you have a right ONLY if you have the power to enforce it and prevent others from encroaching it. And when it comes to combating government force, that means the combatants must have approximately equal arms and armament. Clearly, the armed people of today constitute no match against the power of state and federal governments.
Anyway, the question remains: if an individual or group cannot alter or abolish the form of government at the polls, how CAN they do it?
Armed opposition, obviously. And this means everything, including individual and heroic acts of terrorism, guerrilla war cells, armed militia, assassinations, marching on the capital and taking out the governor and supreme court and legislators, and replacing them, establishing martial law. Well, you know how that would turn out. The US government would send in their secretly trained Russians and Blackwater mercenaries, and national guard from other states, and FBI and Marshals.
They’d stick all firebrands like me in FEMA camps or slaughter us outright as “renegade sovereign citizens.” They’d do it easily because they have drones, fighter jets, Jolly Green Giants, unlimited guns and bullets, assault weaponry, SWAT gear, tanks and armored vehicles, prisoner of war choo-choo trains, and the like. And us? We have bubkes by comparison.
And if they managed to slaughter everyone in Florida in the process, no big deal. They’d just open the state for land grabs by corporations and politicians and immigrants from other states and Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Caribbean Islands. All of those would support the war against Floridians.
I don’t want to go out that way, so I won’t become part of it. Apparently, you won’t either.
Meanwhile, our danger in excision of criminals from government lies in determining the guilt of the perp ahead of time. Maybe the mugger desperately needs money to feed his hungry kids. Maybe a mobster demanded the criminal act from the high-ranking government official by threatening to murder his wife and kids if he didn’t comply. And maybe what looks criminal to us really is not criminal, and we just don’t get it because we suffer so from ignorance or stupidity. After all 25% of America’s population lacks the cognitive ability to graduate from high school, and another 25% are just as irresponsible.
Well, in that case, anybody with common sense knows that if you do the crime, you do the time (or suffer whatever fate the fates dish out to you). People everywhere must expect that other folks will grab a stick and whack a snake that looks threatening, WITHOUT giving the snake a chance to change its mind. Crooks of every stripe know this, and they make themselves responsible for their fates.
In other words, a criminal in government, or a government employee who flouts the rules, the law, and the constitutions, thereby BEGS for his assassination. Such a crook should wear no look of surprise when the projectile pierces his pate.
Those who covered up Benghazi – do they deserve such a fate? What do you suppose they covered up. The Israelis know. Their intelligence whizbangs say the US turned a blind eye to the “terrorist” attack to mollify the attackers so the attackers would not cause even worse problems. You know what I call that? ABJECT TREASON and conspiracy to murder. I, therefore, would turn a blind eye to the excision (from Government and Planet) of everyone involved.
I’m making a tiny point here. When you write an article to INFORM, you MUST REVEAL your ulterior purpose – to make the reader COMMIT to political activism. We need out government leaders and functionaries to see the people as a populace of assassins just waiting for somebody in government to warrant excision. And then the excisions should happen immediately and serve as “heads on a pike” to warn other would-be government perpetrators of crime what fate lies in store for them. That is the ONLY WAY to put teeth into the loyalty oath that every one of them swears upon ascending to power.
We need TEN THOUSAND writers and TEN MILLION political activists REMINDING government employees of the foregoing realities every day. And sadly the only effective reminder lies in the occasional summary excision, without further investigation, indictment, prosecution, trial, or conviction, because everybody knows that a proceeding against Hillary (for example) would die (along with its instigator) before it ever got started.
We writers need to imbue fellow Americans with the philosophy every Texas country boy knows about dealing with danger:
“Whoever’s closest to the snake, grab a stick and whack it.”
Forget not this axiom: “Snake whackers diminish Tyranny.”
Meanwhile, as for me, I’ll content myself with the tadpole’s life. For I know so well that if I but live that life loyally each day, day by day, some day I’ll look into the mirror and see a frog staring back at me.
I mean, what better can we do than to grow into become the shape our souls?